Question of the Day

Was Trump right to declare 'national emergency' for border wall?

I cannot rid from my mind the name Alioto, Judge Samuel Alioto. That is the name of Judge Samuel Alito as pronounced by the delightful Sen. Edward Kennedy, or is it Eduardo Kennedino?

No, it is simply Teddy, and he is as entertaining as any U.S. senator since the days of the soused Southerners, who would tipple their way through the dreamy days on Capitol Hill, rousing themselves for histrionic oratory in the midafternoon and then slumping back into their seats, awaiting the late afternoon hour when they would all gather in one or another’s chambers for a “restorative” — then on to dinner.

Teddy, in this health-mad era, is a throwback to the Senate’s post-Prohibition 1930s. Anyone who watched him during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Alioto or Alito or whatever-the-hell-his-name-is must have gleaned that Teddy had hardly a clue what he was doing. His set speeches were written for him by brainy staff members who will soon move on to Washington law firms or lobbying outfits, all becoming polite versions (Democratic versions, that is) of the hellish Abramoff or Abraham Hoff or whatever his name might be.

This gluttonous rogue, bursting out of his overcoat as he waddles from court appearances to his waiting car, is a scandalous figure to be sure. Jack Abramoff stands at the end of a long line of such shabby fixers.

One Abramoff predecessor whose name was on the tongue of every Washington watcher in the early 1980s was Tongsun Park of Abscam fame. (That scandal occasioned the first expulsion of a House member since 1861, the Hon. Michael Myers, Pennsylvania Democrat.) Park has just been indicted for one of the many U.N. scandals. Possibly Abramoff has a future at the United Nations.

Park, Abramoff, they come and go, but the Democratic fixers remain. When they do trip up, the Kultursmog simply ignores their indiscretions. In the 1990s, we had an entire presidential administration of fixers, with the chief fixers seated right at the top, Bill and Hillary. Last week Independent Counsel David Barrett (one of seven independent counsels from the Clinton years) delivered his final report detailing the Clinton administration’s bullying exertions to fix both an Internal Revenue Service investigation and Independent Counsel Barrett’s investigation. As yet hardly a ripple of interest has troubled the serene waters of this great city.

The media for the most part missed the fact that some 120 pages of the report were redacted. In fact, the New York Times was so oblivious it actually reported the Barrett Report was the “full report,” a judicial panel having, according to the Times, “ordered a full disclosure.”

Certainly the silver-haired Teddy is not interested in the Barrett Report. He is interested in Ali Oto, the Islamic terrorist whom the Bush administration has nominated for the Supreme Court.

Thundering and blubbering during Senate Judiciary Committee grilling of the bemused nominee, Teddy stumbled over questions supposed to reveal dreadful things about the judge.

The Democrats discovered that as a young Princetonian in the early 1970s, he was a party to something called Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Teddy, Sen. Charles Schumer, and their colleagues now call this “a radical group.” I actually remember the groups from those days that were called “radical.” They committed mayhem, destroyed university buildings and at the end of their idealistic saga robbed banks. One actually destroyed the ROTC building at Princeton. They were on the left, not the right; and liberal Democrats in those days admired their “ideals” if not their methods.

As Judge whatever-his-name-is proceeds to Senate confirmation, it is worth observing that all the issues the Democrats have raised about him are false issues. As for abortion, the Supreme Court will never overturn it. The court has already adjudged it constitutional and it will take a constitutional amendment to change that decision, then most likely state action.

The Democrats’ fear of “judicial activism” from a conservative Supreme Court is also a false issue. The conservatives on the court believe in judicial restraint, not activism. Their point is that they are restrained by the law.

Changing the law is in the hands of legislators such as the delightful Sen. Kennedino, who during his Judiciary Committee performance blubbered, “This nominee was influenced by the Goldwater presidency.” Damn, I love this man.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of the American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun, and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. His latest book is “Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House.”